Hi I had am starting a freshwater 180 gallon with a sump set up. I was outfitted with the idea of going salt water and now have a freshwater tank. My sump is Eshopps adv 300. I have researched good biofiltration set ups of foam, lava rock, K1, bio beeds....just wondering if there is a recommended order or set up. I will be housing arowana, diamond ray, peacock bass, and oscars. Thank you for any help.
Tips for filtration set up for freshwater sump
- Thread starter jdavis
- Start date
Multiple types of bio media reduce efficiency. Pick the most efficient one for your setup. Check out this site: https://aquariumscience.org/index.php/7-1-review-of-media/
I agree that the fancy sump set-ups that contain multiple types of biomedia make very little sense. Compare the usable surface area per unit volume of the media (as shown in the chart) and simply select the one with the most surface area per volume...or, if you are considering cost (as I always do!) you can choose based upon the best ratio of surface area per unit cost. Just about any sump gives you far more space for biomedia than you really need, even if you use the "worst" ones.
Interesting how some of the most expensive media actually deliver some of the lowest numbers in terms of surface area (efficiency). Whichever way you decide to go...why would you reduce the effectiveness of your filter by mixing your choice with one of the inferior products? Pick the one you want, and then use only that. And don't believe all the charts and reports, either; the one linked above talks about cubic litres of media, calling it "L 3" or litres cubed. Litres are already a measure of volume, a three-dimensional concept, and don't need the "cubed" appellation. There are likely other examples of ignorant silliness hidden in there as well, but that is the first one that jumped out at me; if you can't even trust the nomenclature they use for the simplest concepts they are "explaining"...how can you possibly trust the actual data they present? They also state that "Matrix is probably the single most popular filter media and easily 90% of all biomedia used is either expensive Matrix, Biohome or a ceramic media". That fanciful "statistic" is utter hogwash.
I'm convinced that many gearheads buy the most expensive equipment, including the most expensive media...whether or not it's actually good enough to justify the price...simply so they can take pics of the shiny set-up and post them up on social media. I'm a bit of a hypocrite on this point myself; although I loathe spending more than necessary, and don't care at all what social media thinks of my set-ups (not that I post pictures in any case)...I still have a large quantity of K1 fluidized media churning away in my biggest sump. I'm not showing off...and I'm not trying to convince anyone, including myself, that it's "better" in any way.
It's there because my youngest granddaughters love watching it circulate and tumble...and because I lucked into a barter deal that allowed me to get it almost for free.
Buy whatever you like; they all work well enough to do the job, if the job is simply to provide a home for beneficial bacteria. If the job is to impress other people...you can still buy whatever you like, using that as a criterion.
Interesting how some of the most expensive media actually deliver some of the lowest numbers in terms of surface area (efficiency). Whichever way you decide to go...why would you reduce the effectiveness of your filter by mixing your choice with one of the inferior products? Pick the one you want, and then use only that. And don't believe all the charts and reports, either; the one linked above talks about cubic litres of media, calling it "L 3" or litres cubed. Litres are already a measure of volume, a three-dimensional concept, and don't need the "cubed" appellation. There are likely other examples of ignorant silliness hidden in there as well, but that is the first one that jumped out at me; if you can't even trust the nomenclature they use for the simplest concepts they are "explaining"...how can you possibly trust the actual data they present? They also state that "Matrix is probably the single most popular filter media and easily 90% of all biomedia used is either expensive Matrix, Biohome or a ceramic media". That fanciful "statistic" is utter hogwash.
I'm convinced that many gearheads buy the most expensive equipment, including the most expensive media...whether or not it's actually good enough to justify the price...simply so they can take pics of the shiny set-up and post them up on social media. I'm a bit of a hypocrite on this point myself; although I loathe spending more than necessary, and don't care at all what social media thinks of my set-ups (not that I post pictures in any case)...I still have a large quantity of K1 fluidized media churning away in my biggest sump. I'm not showing off...and I'm not trying to convince anyone, including myself, that it's "better" in any way.
It's there because my youngest granddaughters love watching it circulate and tumble...and because I lucked into a barter deal that allowed me to get it almost for free.
Buy whatever you like; they all work well enough to do the job, if the job is simply to provide a home for beneficial bacteria. If the job is to impress other people...you can still buy whatever you like, using that as a criterion.
I agree that the fancy sump set-ups that contain multiple types of biomedia make very little sense. Compare the usable surface area per unit volume of the media (as shown in the chart) and simply select the one with the most surface area per volume...or, if you are considering cost (as I always do!) you can choose based upon the best ratio of surface area per unit cost. Just about any sump gives you far more space for biomedia than you really need, even if you use the "worst" ones.
Interesting how some of the most expensive media actually deliver some of the lowest numbers in terms of surface area (efficiency). Whichever way you decide to go...why would you reduce the effectiveness of your filter by mixing your choice with one of the inferior products? Pick the one you want, and then use only that. And don't believe all the charts and reports, either; the one linked above talks about cubic litres of media, calling it "L 3" or litres cubed. Litres are already a measure of volume, a three-dimensional concept, and don't need the "cubed" appellation. There are likely other examples of ignorant silliness hidden in there as well, but that is the first one that jumped out at me; if you can't even trust the nomenclature they use for the simplest concepts they are "explaining"...how can you possibly trust the actual data they present? They also state that "Matrix is probably the single most popular filter media and easily 90% of all biomedia used is either expensive Matrix, Biohome or a ceramic media". That fanciful "statistic" is utter hogwash.
I'm convinced that many gearheads buy the most expensive equipment, including the most expensive media...whether or not it's actually good enough to justify the price...simply so they can take pics of the shiny set-up and post them up on social media. I'm a bit of a hypocrite on this point myself; although I loathe spending more than necessary, and don't care at all what social media thinks of my set-ups (not that I post pictures in any case)...I still have a large quantity of K1 fluidized media churning away in my biggest sump. I'm not showing off...and I'm not trying to convince anyone, including myself, that it's "better" in any way.
It's there because my youngest granddaughters love watching it circulate and tumble...and because I lucked into a barter deal that allowed me to get it almost for free.
Buy whatever you like; they all work well enough to do the job, if the job is simply to provide a home for beneficial bacteria. If the job is to impress other people...you can still buy whatever you like, using that as a criterion.
Definitely agree.
Here are a couple sumps I built from old tanks and the media is either lava rock from HD or Amazon as well as stuff I had laying around.
This is a 150 that I got for free due to a leak and just resealed it.
Here is a 20 that I made as well. Both work amazingly well.
This is a 150 that I got for free due to a leak and just resealed it.
Here is a 20 that I made as well. Both work amazingly well.
I find these either/or arguments of types of biomedia a little inane.
Millions of bacteria can live on the head of a pin, so in the end, whether one uses cheap lava rock, old toothbrushes, or some expensive creation doesn't as bio-media; really matter.
Its true with more surface area, more can fit, but the bacterial population of a filter is based on available nutrients produced by the fish, or other metabolism happening in the tank, "not" on how much media is there.
Whether you mix types is equally as inane, because all the bacteria need, is a surface to reside on, to become biofilm.
I use a 125 gal tank as a sump. (photo below)
90 % of it is planted, and all the plants, beyond eating nitrate (something other bio-media doesn't do to any sufficient amount) contain beneficial biofilm, as do the side, substrate, and decor.
In the other 10% or so, of the sump (left end) is where I keep the pump, a few bags of media, a porous block, and matten sheet as biomedia.
The matten sheet (Porrett foam) also acts as mechanical media)
With this method, the tank has always presents 0.00 ammonia, 0.00 nitrite, and undetectable nitrate
Millions of bacteria can live on the head of a pin, so in the end, whether one uses cheap lava rock, old toothbrushes, or some expensive creation doesn't as bio-media; really matter.
Its true with more surface area, more can fit, but the bacterial population of a filter is based on available nutrients produced by the fish, or other metabolism happening in the tank, "not" on how much media is there.
Whether you mix types is equally as inane, because all the bacteria need, is a surface to reside on, to become biofilm.
I use a 125 gal tank as a sump. (photo below)
90 % of it is planted, and all the plants, beyond eating nitrate (something other bio-media doesn't do to any sufficient amount) contain beneficial biofilm, as do the side, substrate, and decor.
In the other 10% or so, of the sump (left end) is where I keep the pump, a few bags of media, a porous block, and matten sheet as biomedia.
The matten sheet (Porrett foam) also acts as mechanical media)
With this method, the tank has always presents 0.00 ammonia, 0.00 nitrite, and undetectable nitrate
Last edited:
One thing's for certain. Beneficial bacteria aren't fussy. If given a food source they will not only colonise your media of choice, but will also colonise every surface in your tank, sump and pipework.
It doesn't matter how cheap or expensive you go regarding your media, that constant will always remain. I'm with the old school guys on this, and somewhat of a cheapskate too. Keep it simple.
It doesn't matter how cheap or expensive you go regarding your media, that constant will always remain. I'm with the old school guys on this, and somewhat of a cheapskate too. Keep it simple.
I think it's more important to design your sump so that all your media is being utilized efficiently, so the water isn't just bypassing the media and/or leaving dead spots of flow where gunk will accumulate within your biomedia. It might not be that you need the most expensive/most surface area media but rather that you choose the best media for your particular setup. May take some trial and error before you settle on one particular media.